Getting ready for the end of growth on Earth

Paul Gilding tells us our economy is not sustainable in his recent TED talk.

Long Beach, California—Paul Gilding wants to scare us. He wants to scare us into acting before it's too late. "The Earth is Full. Full of us, full of our stuff. Full of our waste," he said during his TED talk. In financial terms, we live on the Earth like we are spending 50 percent more than we earn.

Gilding has been agitating for sustainability long before most people became aware of the concept, and he has a bleak message for the prospects of the free market. Our economy is not sustainable, and woefully unprepared for hitting the Earth's limits. It's not just a little bit over the limits of sustainability, either—we are way beyond that.

But humanity has a tendency to think it is only getting started. We imagine economic development magnitudes greater than we have now. This is the very same growth we rely on to solve poverty, to make life better. But open-ended growth is simply not possible, Gilding argued. So, instead of counting on this train never stopping, we might be better off assuming it's going to go off the rails. And he used his TED talk to try to drive the idea home.

"The idea that we can smooth these transitions" through economic difficulties so that "9 billion people can live in 2050 a life of abundance and digital downloads," he said, is "dangerously wrong." The system will break down, it will stop working for us, and we're not doing enough to prepare for that. And it's not like we haven't seen it coming. We've had 50 years of warnings from scientific analyses. And, if that weren't enough, we've had economic studies showing us that it would be better for us to not to wait—that it will ultimately be even more profitably for us to act sooner—but we're doing very, very little. Our eyes are still on the short term, whether it's food, water, or waste.

Gilding argued that we have to have our best economic minds, our best entrepreneurs, communicators, and leaders, shift their thinking to one unassailable fact: "We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet." We need that kind of intellectual backing because people simply do not want to believe this. They have amazing faith in technology, that it will help us solve these problems somehow, someway. Although technology has overcome many once-thought impossible problems, Earth is a finite resource, and technology has never had to overcome the finite nature of the planet we live on. We have to prepare for the end of growth.

"The most important issue we face is how we respond," Gilding notes. "The crisis is now inevitable. The issue is how we react." To be sure, it would be better to react now than latter, in part because we don't know for sure what bubble will pop first. Gilding asked his audience to imagine what happens if the carbon bubble bursts. Nations will battle not just for gasoline, but food and water. Thirty percent unemployment in America could be the norm. It will fundamentally change society. It will fundamentally change how we think of the future.

Yet our national dialogue is fixated on gas prices. Our assumptions about the future presently have little bearing on what will actually happen when the lights go out on the global economy. We are hiding from ourselves.

And this is where Gilding saw the value of fear. The truth is, we should all be afraid. Fear is an appropriate response to danger. If we harness that fear now, we still have time. If we wait until the lights are out, it's going to be nasty. Tapping into fear is important. The fact is, we need to change how we feel, because only that will change how we act. Free market fundamentalists are wrong; we do not have limitless resources, and if growth is the only solution we have to offer to our problems, we will eventually be terribly wrong.

"This could be our finest hour," Gilding concludes. But we must start thinking and planning now for the end of growth. And to do that, we probably need to be afraid of the alternatives.

Ken Fisher
Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation. Emailken@arstechnica.com//Twitter@kenfisher

Also, can we have more information about Gilding and why he's qualified to make these kinds of statements? This article needs to be filled out more. It needs background, and perhaps a few academic citations, to back this up.

As for technology not being able to expand a finite planet? Hello? Neolithic revolution? Three-field system? Green Revolution? Each system of agriculture has its limits, yes. But that doesn't mean there isn't something better.

Things will get dicey when hundreds of millions of people in China and India suddenly realize that they're doomed to grinding poverty forever. It's not simply a matter of resources - the elephant in the room is that the market may not be able to find something useful for 9 billion people to do. The driving industries of the modern economy have a weak relationship between output capacity and required labor, and the old blue collar industries are working apace to minimize their own labor requirements. Underemployment is bound become an increasingly severe problem even in the developed world. For Christ's sake, we already have a glut of PhDs.

Not all of us are stupid, it's the "drill baby drill" crowd who are driving us off the cliff.

I'd like to see models developed for how to gracefully shrink cities for example, in a world of diminishing population. The only major city that had to face this so far is Detroit, and it's a disaster. Entire neighborhoods crashing in value because half the houses are abandoned. Japan will have to figure this out soon.

"Free market fundamentalists are wrong; we do not have limitless resources, and if growth is the only solution we have to offer to our problems, we will eventually be terribly wrong. "

That is so wrong its hard to even know where to start. Free markets are all about determining how to allocate *limited* resources, not about some assumption that resources are unlimited. Im not even sure what that part about growth being the only solution is all about. That whole sentence is a badly constructed strawman.

"We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas."

President Roosevelt once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Jesus Christ teaches us to fear not. You can fear the end if you wish but I intend to end my days on this earth trusting God. I get far more accomplished through trust than I do through fear.

Malthus was basically right though; he just didn't see the fossil-fuel powered industrial revolution (and agricultural revolution) coming. But when global oil production levels off (which it may already have?), or starts to drop, then yes: He might very well be right again.

And there may not be a new burst of technology to save us this time. As they say, past results don't indicate future performance. Or, think of it in terms of the gamblers fallacy; if you keep placing bets, you will, eventually, lose.

And even if we DO get lucky, AGAIN, fundamental physical constraints mean we are eventually screwed, no matter what: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... le-energy/ Within a millennia or two, at current growth rates, we surpass the power output of the sun; within another, we surpass the output of ALL the suns in the galaxy. Even at the speed of light, we can't reach new energy sources fast enough to sustain that. Are you going to risk the survival of humanity on the discovery of FTL travle?

President Roosevelt once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Jesus Christ teaches us to fear not. You can fear the end if you wish but I intend to end my days on this earth trusting God. I get far more accomplished through trust than I do through fear.

Except in this scenario you're driving off a cliff and peacefully completing your knitting instead of screaming, flailing, whatever. Yes, you'll have slightly more of your new scarf before you plunge to your death, but that's not really a whole lot of consolation when it turns out Jesus wasn't actually saving you and maybe just maybe you should have given that parachute a shot a while back.

Not all of us are stupid, it's the "drill baby drill" crowd who are driving us off the cliff.

Right, because everyone who drives a Prius is good for environment. Except that, over the long haul, they're not as environmentally friendly as, say, something that just burns gas. Oops.

One thing that would probably help, immensely, both economically and environmentally would be to add pressures to companies to stop it with the damned planned obsolescence crap. My parents only got rid of their washer and dryer because they couldn't fit them in the new house (they finally escaped the city) and needed a smaller set. Mom's still irked about that. (I'm irked they didn't give them to me.)

However, on a per-volume basis, the more energy-efficient ones...aren't. They're that much smaller than the ones my parents bought in the mid-80s. Also, they break way more often (plastic gears? Seriously?), all the appliances do. Each one of those is more shipping, refining, mining, forming, etc. If companies were politely encouraged to use better build techniques, we wouldn't have to replace shit nearly so often.

Personally, I usually manage to get well over the normal life expectancy out of my stuff; my crappy washer and dryer (purchased because they were cheap, and I was broke) area already 11 years old.

Whoever has kids in this society has way too much faith in things just working out, beyond any reason.

Besides that, I say bring it on. Seeing the response of people to such trivial environmental issues such as a $300/year carbon tax I don't think humanity deserves any better than abject poverty. A little nihilistic, I know, but any hope of more than a few 'eccentric' people giving a shit about the continuation of our society is long gone. People do care about gas prices, or what women do with their unborn fetus, and I think we deserve nothing less than hell on earth.

People have been predicting the END-OF-LIFE-AS-WE-KNOW-IT for centuries. In the first century AD St.John predicts the Apocalypse in the book of Revelation. The reason it has been discredited, like the hundreds of long term economic forecasts made every month, is that he conveniently forgot to mention any dates.

There are two constants in people who make long term predictions: 1) they have big egos and predicting big things strokes their egos 2) they think they have the tools they need to make their predictions.

Malthus already predicted overpopulation in the early 1800's when there were a lot fewer of us. Predicting the end of the world, the end of anything, is a fool's errand. We have a reasonable understanding of nature but we don't have much of a clue of how things are stitched together.

This a stitch we all know: when we run out of food and water we will beat the crap out of whoever has some left. In the process many of us will perish.

And here's a big, ego-stroking prediction: an asteroid, a volcano or a superbug will kill many of us. Oh, you want dates with that too?

I never said a Prius is the answer to our problems. The point is the free market is prone to creating bubbles, and the oil economy is one. We should be investing into a smooth transition away from oil instead of waiting for a quick painful one. But some people feel that this is socialism and thus it's evil and takes away our liberty. The alternative though is even more painful, and the people who profit from drilling for ever more oil won't be the ones feeling the pain. We will.

Malthus was basically right though; he just didn't see the fossil-fuel powered industrial revolution (and agricultural revolution) coming. But when global oil production levels off (which it may already have?), or starts to drop, then yes: He might very well be right again.

And there may not be a new burst of technology to save us this time. As they say, past results don't indicate future performance. Or, think of it in terms of the gamblers fallacy; if you keep placing bets, you will, eventually, lose.

And even if we DO get lucky, AGAIN, fundamental physical constraints mean we are eventually screwed, no matter what: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... le-energy/ Within a millennia or two, at current growth rates, we surpass the power output of the sun; within another, we surpass the output of ALL the suns in the galaxy. Even at the speed of light, we can't reach new energy sources fast enough to sustain that. Are you going to risk the survival of humanity on the discovery of FTL travle?

Malthus was wrong because all of his ideas flowed from an incorrect assumption, that, left unchecked, human population would simply grow without bounds. It didnt. As people become wealthier, they have less children, high population growth is a symptom of poverty. Once the industrial revolution began lifting people out of poverty, population growth started to slow to the point where most industrialized countries are close to, or have gone below replacement levels.

Its funny that you say that Malthus was basically right except for technological improvements. Technological improvements are a big reason why he was wrong. It would be like saying that the geocentric model of the solar system is right except for the placement of the sun.

Like Spaeth, I don't really see a pain-free way to get there. I'm just hoping the end is after I'm dead.

As he says, the best you can hope for is to lay out a better way of organizing society so that when this one clearly fails, and people look for solutions, it will be in people's awareness. But I'm pessimistic, I think the end won't be gradual.

Making more reliable iPods and washing machines isn't a solution or even in the ballpark of the problem. The problem is society, even if setup to recycle much more than it does now, sustains itself on finite resources. You can only stretch them out so far before costs go up, like they have been with energy and other resources.

I don't get the "Oh this again" stuff either I see sometimes, like that somehow invalidates the truth of the matter. If we know for certain we don't have infinite resources, why must we wait until the VERY last possible moment when we have no other options. The current state of "progress" is at a snails pace, while we all fight over how long we have.

Unfortunately big changes don't happen unless there is little else to resort to. I fear the day when that happens. There is absolutely nothing sustainable planned, anywhere, even in the best of efforts. We don't make enough food for everyone, there isn't enough water in places anymore, energy will never get cheaper even with more drilling...

Perhaps he paid attention in high school mathematics and understands the simple truth that compound interest* cannot continue into infinity. It isn't a question of if, it's a matter of when. Anyone saying otherwise is thinking only of their short term comfort.

I'd like to see models developed for how to gracefully shrink cities for example, in a world of diminishing population. The only major city that had to face this so far is Detroit, and it's a disaster. Entire neighborhoods crashing in value because half the houses are abandoned. Japan will have to figure this out soon.

"In a world of diminishing population" - I'm sorry, but I thought this article was referring to the planet Earth - You know, the one we're living on, right now ?

Detroit is an example of a city that was over-reliant on a single industry and paid the price for being such; Todays' cities use it as an example to avoid.

Japan faces population decline due to an aging demographic, but I'll bet a thousand quatloos that you're going to see childbirth incentives within the next fifteen years as they decide they're going to need a lot of people to sweep streets and change diapers.

Actually, if Gilding's talk is peer reviewed science, that aspect wasn't mentioned in this article.

Suppose fossil fuel prices continue to ratchet up over the next decade or so and the result is massive but gradual investment nuclear power and in transportation that doesn't rely on fossil fuels for energy storage. Are we still just as doomed over the course of the next century? While the kind of speculation that this talk raises can be healthy, treating it as scientific fact is just as bad as citing Nostradamus.

I'd like to see models developed for how to gracefully shrink cities for example, in a world of diminishing population. The only major city that had to face this so far is Detroit, and it's a disaster. Entire neighborhoods crashing in value because half the houses are abandoned. Japan will have to figure this out soon.

"In a world of diminishing population" - I'm sorry, but I thought this article was referring to the planet Earth - You know, the one we're living on, right now ?

Detroit is an example of a city that was over-reliant on a single industry and paid the price for being such; Todays' cities use it as an example to avoid.

Japan faces population decline due to an aging demographic, but I'll bet a thousand quatloos that you're going to see childbirth incentives within the next fifteen years as they decide they're going to need a lot of people to sweep streets and change diapers.

If Japan (or any other country that is facing population decline) decides to incentivise childbirth, it will likely be because, like the US, they built their social security system on the assumption of endless growth. Its a ponzi scheme that only works because you can force the next generation to pay for the last. When the next generation is smaller than the last, it starts to become unsustainable.

Suppose fossil fuel prices continue to ratchet up over the next decade or so and the result is massive but gradual investment nuclear power and in transportation that doesn't rely on fossil fuels for energy storage. Are we still just as doomed over the course of the next century?

Nuclear is a maybe/probably. But R&D investment doesn't guarantee that we'll find a suitable replacement for fossil fuel transportation. IF we did, then yeah, for the next century, we're good.

Perhaps he paid attention in high school mathematics and understands the simple truth that compound interest* cannot continue into infinity. It isn't a question of if, it's a matter of when. Anyone saying otherwise is thinking only of their short term comfort.

*i.e. economic, population, and every other kind of growth.

So I'm wrong when I ask for what academic qualifications he has to make these statements? What? I want peer-reviewed articles from academic journals, please.

A quick search in Academic Search Premier gets 18 articles on sustainability by Gilding, four of them from academic journals including: Waste Management and Environment, Green Futures, Sydney Papers, and Corporate Environmental Strategy, and more numerous articles published in The Australian newspaper. He also authored a book titled "The Great Disruption" published last year.

My point here is that some information like the above in the article would have helped with credibility

Suppose fossil fuel prices continue to ratchet up over the next decade or so and the result is massive but gradual investment nuclear power and in transportation that doesn't rely on fossil fuels for energy storage. Are we still just as doomed over the course of the next century? While the kind of speculation that this talk raises can be healthy, treating it as scientific fact is just as bad as citing Nostradamus.

The problem with your thinking is that the first clause of your first sentence does not necessitate the second. Even if fuel prices slowly increase over a decade, that doesn't mean we'll do the right thing in response. We may still try to rely on it. We may not invest in nuclear power. Someone may just invade some oil-bearing country for their oil.

And fuel isn't the only potential problem. All it takes is one really good drought in the right place, and what could have been a chronic, slowly building problem becomes an acute nightmare: millions dying of thirst. Millions with access to guns, and to neighbors that aren't dying of thirst.

You think wars won't be fought over that? Even worse, if these hit certain parts of the world, then all of a sudden, the price for goods shoot up enormously as people are no longer working factories.

Saying that there is a way to slowly transition isn't wrong. The problem is that it may not be slow. Disasters happen. Something terrible can happen. Unfortunate things can happen. And these can precipitate acute economic crises that cannot easily be dealt with.

Personally, I don't think the world's population is going to break 10 billion. More than likely, as China and India develop, they'll do what other developed nations do: slow down on child production. The problem isn't population so much as the stress everything is putting on the world.

Thus far, we're still fine. And if everything keeps going slowly and smoothly, it may work out. But if there are a few too many crises as we try to transition to some kind of economic model not based on growth, then we're fucked. People start panicking, nukes start firing, etc.

And there may not be a new burst of technology to save us this time...

Its funny that you say that Malthus was basically right except for technological improvements. Technological improvements are a big reason why he was wrong.

I get the sense that you think you're disagreeing with me.

Yes, Malthus was wrong because he didn't see the technology coming.

My entire point was that, this time, we may _actually_ not have new technology coming; hence, Malthus could "become" right.

Not "will", just "may". But that's enough to give me pause.

Well, no. As i said, the main reason why Malthus was wrong is that populations do not always grow save starvation. Wealth is an effective disincentive to have a bunch of children and technology is a big part of why people are becoming wealthier. Even if technological improvements slow or stop, and there is no reason to believe that will happen, people wont suddenly become poor again and start having more kids.

I'm not worried about 2,000 years. Those will work themselves out. If humanity can avoid killing themselves off over the next 200-300 years, then our population and economic growth will be at sustainable levels (ie: ~0% growth, more or less). It's really the relative near-term where we decide if we can survive, not the long-term.

...because, like the US, they built their social security system on the assumption of endless growth. Its a ponzi scheme that only works because you can force the next generation to pay for the last. When the next generation is smaller than the last, it starts to become unsustainable.

Damn, this thread IS going to be awesome.

US SS is not a Ponzi scheme. We SAW the baby boomer retirement spree coming, and we PREPARED for it. That's why SS built up a huge fracking trust fund, to pay for this very thing.

Then SOMEONE decided that they'd use that pile of savings to fund a tax for the rich and to go to war in Iraq for no God damn reason, and now that the bin is empty his friends say "Oops, sorry. It looks like 'entitlements' are destroying our budget." Yeah.